Houston’s Historic Districts Will Remain as They Are

The results are in, and it looks like the great campaign to dissolve Houston’s historic districts has been a bit of a bust. Houston planning director Marlene Gafrick reports that the “survey period” for Heights East, Heights West, Heights South, Boulevard Oaks, and Avondale West historic districts has closed and that the planning department has determined that “none of the districts achieved the 51% threshold that requires the Planning Director to recommend repeal of the designation or, in the case of Heights South, recommend denying the designation.” Neighborhood meetings and subsequent “surveys” for 2 more districts — Norhill and First Montrose Commons — haven’t taken place yet (the meetings are scheduled for January 8th and 18th, respectively). That’s it for the 7 districts where petitions from owners triggered the “reconsideration” provisions of the preservation ordinance changes city council approved last fall. According to the new ordinance, if owners of 51 percent of the lots in any of the districts had returned notices sent to them by the city, the districts might have been dissolved — or, more likely, had their boundaries adjusted.

Opponents of the preservation-ordinance changes had focused their dissolution campaign on the Heights historic districts. But if the 51 percent threshold wasn’t attainable in those districts, it seems less likely their efforts will succeed in Norhill and First Montrose Commons. Meanwhile, the city’s planning commission and archeological and historic commission have both recommended that city council approve 2 additional pending historic districts, in Woodland Heights and Glenbrook Valley.

100 Comment

I am a fourth-generation resident of the Houston Heights–and I am so very proud of my neighbors for standing firm. What a way to start a New Year, with a statement that some values–history, community–are worth preserving.

Westmoreland Place isn’t listed here so does that mean the mayor’s own neighborhood succesfully rejected the mayor’s “historic preservation?”

As for the other districts, one hopes the opponents did their own survey. Just in case Marlene Gafrick miscounted the reply cards. Or in case some of the “reply cards” got lost in the mail. Just in case she miscounted of course.

Welcome to Hell. I’m Marlene and I will be your control freak for the next few years. That’s not really your house, you just have the privilege of living in it while I tell you what it should look like, what changes you can make, and how much you have to spend to meet our ever changing rules. Don’t like it? Then you can move yourself, your spouse, and those annoying kids to the suburbs, where your kind really belongs. I mean, really, why did you buy a two bedroom bungalow if you planned on having triplets?

And you, over there, you don’t really need to add a room on so your ailing mother can live with you. Stick her in a nursing home where she belongs.

Guards, take that man over there and drop him in the hellfire for even asking if he can use a Hardie product on one of these fine, historic homes. Only all natural wood is good enough to meet my standards. So what if it rots and is expensive. Don’t like it? Move to the suburbs where your kind belongs.

What’s that you say? The approval process is long and expensive? Too bad. Move to the suburbs if you don’t like it. We can’t have unintelligent people like you trying to make inappropriate changes to these incredibly original homes.

Cynic, you know good and well your neighbors did not stand firm. A rig vote that counted non-votes as “for” the ordinance is simply an anti-democratic process to force a bad ordinance on the neighborhood. My neighbors were over 70% opposed to the ordinance.

Those who foisted this draconian law on us will see us again in the fall, when fair voting rules apply to their elections. I hope they are prepared.

From Dave:
A rig vote that counted non-votes as “for” the ordinance is simply an anti-democratic process to force a bad ordinance on the neighborhood.
____________________________

And no doubt if the districts have a different count than Marlene Gafrick does then “lost in the mail” votes will be considered as “for” the district instead of “against” the district. Does anyone really trust the city in this?

Not to mention that if you owned multiple properties that were next to each other, you only got one vote. The “preservationist” not only made sure to make the vote biased/nondemocratic, they intentionally made developers/investors votes count as little as possible.
Woodland Heights should not just magically become a historic district…

“No one in my house takes kindly to being told what to do with our property. Period.”

Does Glenbrook Valley not have an HOA? I agree that Historic Districts imposed by the city are probably not the right way to go about trying to preserve the city’s heritage, but neither can the city simply purchase every building with heritage. Where is the middle ground to inspiring people to preserve our history rather than tear it down and replace all of it with McMansions/6-lot townhomes? I mean, I’d love one day to purchase a mid-cent modern home or bungalow in town one day, but how many will be left if property values drive them out? I’d love to hear from those who have solutions.

Rather than promoting incorrect assumptions, a la Faux News, comments that are researched by reading the actual ordinance and questioning the relevant city employees will carry more weight. Brief example, 1 or 2 story expansions in the back are fine.
Admittedly, I don’t have all the figures on suburban HOAs, but I expect those restrictions could be equally oppressive to those who object to maintaining and increasing neighborhood property values.

We cant sell (West Houston Heights address) as 1. too much is wrong and no lender will make a loan. 2. cash buyers, i.e. builders, will no longer be interested as there is no financial rational for buying a Heights property that can only be renovated.
..

And I imagine we’ll continue to see the property value decline, probably 20% this year alone.
..

I guess all we can do is hang on, make no further investment and pray for a fire / hurricane or that some legal challenge to the historic ordinance emerges.

What this means is that the people in the Historic Districts said “Meh.”
There was an overwhelming lack of concern and/or blatant apathy over the issue. Given that so many people are already quite familiar with deed restrictions that govern everything; paint color, drapery style, shrub genus, etc., Historic District rules look laissez faire in comparison.
Face it, mouth-foamers – you are in the minority.

Darby Mom, The difference between a Homeowner’s Association and the Houston Archaelogical and Houston Archaelogical and Historic Commission is significant. A HOA is made up of homeowner’s who live in the neighborhood and they are elected based on the bylaws of the HOA so that if you don’t like the outcome, you can take part in the process. By contrast, the HAHC is made up of 13 non-elected officials appointed by the Mayor and City Council and only three of them even live in a historic district. At least, in a HOA, a homeowner could get involved and run for a place on the board. Further the homeowners would be able to change rules that were onerous or did not work for our community if there was support for the change. Whereas here the City Council and the Mayor can shove down our throats significant changes without even garnering a majority of support from the homeowners in the historic district. instead the homeowners were essentially given less than 60 days to oppose a historic district that took years to create. This comment does not even touch on the highly undemocratic process that homeowners underwent and the fact that the Mayor and her cronies ensured a surefire victory by requiring a response from all propertyowners the day before Christmas Eve.

It is time for the anti-preservationists to admit defeat and go away. You all had piles of mailers, plenty of media coverage and lots of town hall meetings where you rudely jeered at city officials. It is time to face the facts. The Heights wants the historic preservation ordinance. We are a very highly educated and intelligent community. We know exactly what we are getting–a city run bureaucracy that will be just as imperfect as city government always is. But we will take that burden any day over the kind of development the Bill Baldwins of the world want to impose on our community. Property rights include the right to petition government to create a historic district as much as they include the right to tear down a 1920 bungalow and replace it with a 3500 sq foot faux New Orleans looking thing. In the Heights, we have opted for the former. It is time for the anti-preservationists to respect our property rights and move on.

Just another reminder that your vote actually matters. This was the most undemocratic process I have ever witnessed.

I am 100% certain that if we were to request another vote next December where the exact same rules applied but were reversed the districts would all be abolished.

Many people had no idea what was at stake, others were flat lied to be the City and the Preservationist. Still others were oblivious to the entire process.

Anything that counts inaction as action is going to win…this was an undemocratic, gigantic taking of private property rights.

I eagerly await the lawsuit…whether or not the ordinance will hold water is debatable, but whether or not the process used to establish the districts will be upheld is much more uncertain. A legal challenge to the method of creation and the form of the vote has a high probability of prevailing!

MW: I live in a deed restricted part of the Heights where you can only renovate, not tear down, and our property values have done quite nicely (generally a bit higher per square foot than your end of the hood). So don’t despair.

I hope that people will focus on some other horrid infringements of property rights, though, like electrical codes, or restrictions or building the open-air beef-rendering plant I’ve always dreamed of in my back yard.

@Old School – your victory proved nothing about the homeowners in the Heights…it proved only how low you were willing to stoop to win.

The vote is no way indicative of what the people living in the Heights want…it is only indicative of easy it is to rig an election when you have the ability to decide every aspect of how it will be counted.

The greater Heights did not want the Ordinance, it was forced upon them.

No problem John (another one) – come buy my now unmarketable POS at the market rates of mid 2010 and we’ll just take our residence and money elsewhere. And bring cash because no bank is going to make a loan on the place.

Marksmu: Nice job with the spin, but what you are actually saying is incredibly insulting to people in the Heights. You are saying that even though we have seen yard signs on every block, have received dozens of mailers, have seen numerous articles, and have been to several public meetings, that the vast majority of people in the Heights are too stupid to realize that the historic ordinace is bad, understand the survey process and take a few moments to return the mailer. If the anti-preservation movement had the support they claimed, they would have won the survey. They did not because people in the Heights are intelligent and understood exactly what the ordinance means and supported it. This anti-ordinance majority does not exist. And there is no takings. The ordinance preserve plenty of reasonable investment backed expectations in order to pass constitutional muster. In fact, compared to most historic preservation ordinances in the US, ours is incredibly weak. You all had your chance to make your voices heard. You failed. It is over. The Heights is now protected.

I did not spin anything…I can not think of a less democratic process than counting a non-vote as a yes.

Do you really believe that the vote would have the same outcome if the method of counting the votes were reversed? Where a non-vote was counted as a no? Can you point me to even one legitimate voting process where not voting was a vote for one party over another?

finness – we bought the property specifically as a tear down. It has been a POS for quite some time – probably starting sometime in the 1970’s. New construction on the lot was delayed in 2008 / 2009 as a result of the financial crisis.

…
So now our block has a non historic POS eyesore that cannot be economically renovated. Maybe we can rent it out to some crack addicts.

The foundation is shot, the roof is on its last legs, a series of remodels from the 1950’s on were poorly executed and the wiring / plumbing falls woefully short of code. No bank is going to lend on a house in that condition.
………
The only economic solution to preserve lot value is tear down and build a MacMansion. What the City is saying is sorry-o you can only renovate to some pre WW2 architectural standard.
………
Crazy stuff.

I am in the same situation. Bought a neglected tear down 3 years ago with the intention to build if my house fell through.
……
My house did not fall through, I put about $10,000 into the house to make it rentable, (new wiring and plumbing) and I now rent it.
…..
Lot value of the property $190,000. Value of home on the property $11,000.
……
Home was built in 1952 and is a Jim Walters home – Its a pre-manufactured home that was built after the original bungalow burned down in 1951. The foundation has severe rot, the roof and rafters need to be replaced, the windows are worthless single pane aluminum windows, the floors are not salvagable and the garage is in very poor shape.
……
This home has no historic properties whatsoever, but because the average home on the street is less than 1500 sq ft, any new construction on the block will need to be similar in size….so you are looking at about a $450,000-$500,000 for a 1500-2000sq ft bungalow that would be new (ie non-historic in a historic district). That puts the $/sqft at $250…well above the average ($170-$200 sqft) in the area…now tell me what economic use can actually be made with those numbers?
….
Nobody is going to rehab this thing further than I have…it will sit in its ugly state until the ordinance is repealed or the values of other homes in the area become outrageous and this property becomes economically viable again.
…
As it is the ordinance created a permanent eyesore for this street.

As a designer I can tell you that the process is not easy and a lot of compromises have to be made, but it can be done and everyone will now have to deal with it. As a builder I can tell you that I am no longer in the market for your properties but and happy to do the work.

What the property owners NOW need to worry about are the lenders appraisers. How are banks/lenders going to make a loan or mortgage if the appraiser can’t give the property a value. The comps from yesterday should no longer be valid, and the way landers are today it’s might be close to impossible to get money until they can figure out the true effects. I would expect 50% equity loans to be the norm for a while, if you can get them at all. That means much fewer remodels, and new builds will be non-existant, so the neighborhood will definitely slow down, and will very likely stagnate in the short term.
I would suggest that the fence sitters / future builders get to work, do it fast and get out while you can.

Marksmu: Your people did not turn out because you do not have the support that you imagined. You did not have the numbers. The rules were the rules. It was not an election. It was a re-survey process. We had an election. Those elected leaders approved the changes to the ordinance. There is no legal requirement for homeowners to have to approve the changes to the ordinance that their elected leaders approved. We have a representational form of government. Homeowners had an unprecedented opportunity to overrule the City by a simple majority. They did not do so.

And you are not limited to 1500 sq feet. Just look at this HAHC approved rehab: http://search.har.com/engine/1123-Ashland-Houston-TX-77008_HAR88077621.htm. It is now one of the larger homes on the block in terms of sq footage. The limitation is on character, not pure sq footage. I actually looked at buying the original bungalow. It was about 800 sq feet and had absolutely no updates. It was successfully rehab-ed and is now on sale for a large pile of cash. This property should have been a permanent eyesore under your logic. Instead, it has been successfully rehab-ed in the middle of the worst housing/finance crunch since the 1980s.

You know, there are hundreds of protected historic districts around the U.S., all of whom have dealt with this question – we are, after all, talking about the pressures that lead neighborhoods to seek protection. in fact, I’ve lived in one of them before (with strict rules that would simply never happen in Houston). Might it be worth looking at what has happened in those other places?

I know it’s fun to play Cassandra and all, but past reality is sometimes a helpful guide to assessing what happens in reality.

What part of that house is historic? Its 70+% a new home! If it was 800 sq ft and is now 2,800 sq ft – exactly what part of it remains historic???
…..
If the original 800 sq ft did not remain, this would be a McMansion…but for some mystical reason, because the original 800 square feet are still there its a historic renovation?
…..
Thats crazy! This is a NEW HOME – built with some old wood that was already on the lot. There is nothing historic about it at all.
….
For $695,000….Lets see how long this house stays on the market.

Let’s do watch to see how long this house sits on the market. I’ll bet not long. For all your whining, there is a nearly 11,000 square foot lot in my ‘hood that has sat for sale for 4 years… a developer bought the historic bungalow, leveled it, poured a foundation for five townhomes, got his first disbursement from the bank and then hit the road. Now we all get to enjoy a weed covered, trash filled rat infested eyesore. Why don’t you come buy this lot and build your investment/remodel/flip? Historic preservation cannot come fast enough, IMO.

What do you think was driving the value of the property in the Heights up? It was the builders, and their extensive work improving the area!
….
It certainly was not the pleasant atmosphere the preservationist created in the neighborhood.
…..
The average homeowner has no interest in the headaches of an expansive remodel. The builders took the risks and improved the area…all of a sudden the area became safer, and the preservationist roll in, now – everyone gets to play under their new rules becuase someone else did all the hard work and took all the risks.

Marks, what makes you think I want the value of my home to go up? Some of us “idiots” actually bought homes in the Heights because we like living there. Everytime a “developer” comes in and levels a home and then replaces it with a mansion, two things happen (1) my taxes go up (gee, thanks a lot) and (2) all of the affordable housing is gobbled up and replaced with rich people houses (no offense to rich people).

I am not a builder or a flipper. I bought a second house because I was having major issues with my own home. There was a high probability I would have to get rid of it for issues I wont go into.
…..
The issues were resolved, and instead of selling the other house for exactly what I paid for it, and losing the costs associated with closing, I pasted it together to rent for a few years until the value increased sufficiently to cover my costs in it.
….
At the time (2008) home values were still increasing nicely, and it made more sense to hold than sell. If I could have predicted the ordinance, I would have sold.

Also, Marks, it seems to me that many who remodel their houses do so because they want to live in a nice house, not for some payday at the end of the day. The only way anyone makes any money on a remodel in the Heights is if they are in the volume business or if they are cutting corners.

Marks, I think you have bought into the fear machine. Relax. You and your investment will be fine. Some other “idiots” will buy your house and turn it into their home. These “idiots,” like me, actually want a fixer-upper so they can make it their own and not have to deal with someone’s remuddling.

Marksmu: That house was HAHC approved. I watched the entire renovation process. The original structure was taken down to the studs and rehabed with the big camel back addition. The original architectural design of the front of the bungalow was completely preserved and restored.

And you are right. The historic ordinance is incredibly weak. So it is a mystery why everyone claims it is the end of the world. It is not. It just keeps idiot builders from leveling homes and putting up garbage. You can still do tons with your property.

There are plenty of alternatives to the city promoted and controlled deed restrictions via the Preservation Ordinance. Galveston just created their first Conservation District which is mandated and decide on by the community, not the city. We could have preservation that we deem appropriate through efforts like Conservation Districts and strenthened deed restrictions but it will take the efforts of the neighborhood to un-ring the bell in the form of political solutions. Stay tuned. This is only the beginning of this issue, not even the middle, let alone the end game. There is a long way to go before this is a settled issue.

Marksmu – You took a risk. The result was unanticipated. That is always the case in investing – no guaranteed returns on anything. Assuming that all real estate goes up quickly and forever is part of what got us in this economic mess.
Old School’s point is excellent. And I agree with Mel- many homeowners did not come as speculators and it was NOT the builders who made the Heights nice- it was the people who have spent the last 30+ years doing what it takes tot be a neighborhood. The speculators followed US.

If those that supported the Resurvey and Ballots had actually read the historic preservation ordinance to begin with, they would have read that one owner of contiguous properties was one signature – that is the way the ordinance was drafter in 1995 and the original petitions were handled. One large property owner could not determine what the whole neighborhood wanted. Works both ways!

Marks, you must not have read my post. See, there is NO HOUSE to renovate. A builder/investor came in, bought the historic liveable house that had stood there 80+ years, occupied continuously, tore it down, poured a slab for five townhouses and then hit the road. I would have very much preferred that someone purchased the HOUSE that had been standing on said lot and rehabbed it and then lived it in, and their kids played with my kids, and we exchanged cookie recipes at the holidays and pleasantries from our front porches. I have no issue with anyone buying and renovating these fine homes in the Heights. I encourage it! My problem is with tearing down or otherwise destroying perfectly liveable homes and replacing them with shoddy mansions that neither fit the character nor the feel of the neighborhood.

Caneco, don’t be silly. If the argument against preservation is that my property values won’t go up, that is a non-starter. I don’t plan on selling my house anytime soon, so why would I want my tax rate to be artificially increased by a bunch of speculators and investors who are driving up the cost of real estate?

Banks are MORE than willing to loan money to finance projects like yours. Can you do it under “old” lending standards? I would hope not. How do I know this? Because my wife and I are doing it right now. We signed a contract in July for a house in West Heights when all this hub-bub started. I will admit, the buying process can be slow and frustrating. We did not close on the property until November, and the bank originally was having a stroke at the process. But once they began to understand it and what we were doing, it wasn’t a problem. We purchased a 1400 sq ft home, are demolishing (GASP!)500 sq ft of it that was added in the 50’s, and adding 1000 sq ft. And…wait for it…some of it is to the side of the house! All with HAHC approval. Which, need I remind you, comes with a few financial perks from the city. Part of the slowness of the process was due to us purchasing the home AND financing the construction with a one time close constrution loan. As far as appraisals go, the banks appraiser came back with the home having a predicted value of about 12% more than what we will have in it. Where I come from, 12% instant equity ain’t too shabby. Bottom line is this. We bought this house because this is what we wanted to do. And trust me. There are PLENTY of people out there that want to do the same. Is it for everybody? Nope. If you want to build a “McMansion”, great! Come on out here to the ‘burbs where I am now and see how easy that is for ya when ya run it the HOA. Let’s all take a breath and quit acting like the apocalypse is knocking on our door.
Have a nice day, boys and girls!

Sweet. Great news for Hosuton after a disappointing 2010. Thank you Walmart for scaring people in these neighborhoods to realize they need to save their neighborhoods. I guess the scare of lowering your property value works!

But bad news for many of the neighboring areas as their property value will decrease as they get more and more poorly constructed divided lot houses and hap-hazard developments.

Joel – Zoning is when the government tells you what your property may be used for i.e. industrial, residential, commercial, thus we have no zoning and rules about building size or style have nothing to do with building use. Real estate developers create de facto zoning when they prohibit all non-residential uses in their subdivisions, as do HOAs.

The comparison to HOA is ridiculous – This is the government changing the rules of the game after you purchased…….. I know this is corrupt but I just cannot figure out where the money is for these bastards?

@PYEWACKET2 #63- Thanks for the laugh! That was funny.
….
I also thoroughly enjoyed, and will use in all future conversation the McCamel Back comment.
….
I have always thought the camelbacks were ridiculous….why not just start from scratch and make it look a certain way? Its got to be cheaper in the long run, when you consider how much foundation updating likely has to be done to build a second story on a 100 year old house that was not intended to have a second story added to it.

thanks finness, just wondered exactly how far the definition of zoning goes. to me making something a historic district basically means restricting it’s growth and that dense multi-family neighborhoods are out of the question in the future for these areas which one would think is something to promote for near-town locations and not the opposite. many other cities can get by with this as it’s an added value/attraction for tourism and bringing in some money but for a city like ours with no tourist trade the desire is a bit baffling.

i’m sure the area will do fine in the future as there will always be a desire for families to afford the spacious lifestyle in a (safe) neartown neighborhood. i’m thinking a long ways down the road of course, but for common folk like me with kids it’ll really zone us out of the area altogether as maximizing our bang for buck in a neartown home is a matter of standards of living, and not excess, that will require a townhome.

i suppose there’s always the 3rd and 5th wards waiting to be redeveloped but with our cities economic future moving further and further west i doubt these areas will ever really take off in similar fashion due to the time involved in having to cross town in traffic.

1. I get the feeling that not everyone knows what the ordinance actually says.

2. The assumption here seems to be that if you can’t tear a house down and build a McMansion, the land has little value.

If this were true, one would expect property values in Woodland Heights and Norhill Heights – which have deed restrictions that put real limits on developers – to have lagged. In fact home values are quite high in those areas.

3. There’s an assumption that it won’t be possible to build large houses that fit the historic character of the areas. Actually, we see such houses being built in the Heights all the time (by good builders, for homeowners who respect the character of the neighborhood) and we will continue to.

4. People seem a bit confused about these districts, because to read some of the comments you’d think they covered half of the homes inside the loop. We’re talking about a tiny sliver of the city, and a tiny portion of the area inside the loop.

5. Lots of platitudes about property rights. Of course property rights are equally violated by electrical and fire codes, noise laws, and lots of other city ordinances.

6. A neighborhood is not the sum of its structures and the impact of your property extends past its borders. There’s a reason most of us would not move in next door to a crackhouse or a methadone clinic or even just a house with a crazy neighbor who wanders half naked around his back yard screaming. There’s a reason suburban HOAs put tons of nitpicking rules in place. Historic preservation isn’t meant just to protect houses, it’s meant to protect neighborhoods, which are shaped by the relationships between the things built in them – buildings, roads, parks, etc. – as well as the individual structures.

7. Lots of sore losers out there. Who would love the process if it had worked out differently.

8. If you can really predict property value changes based on this, you’ve got an amazing superpower and you should stop dicking around with blog comments and set yourself up making bigger predictions for the big bucks (& then you can move to River Oaks off the proceeds). I predict minimal impact one way or the other. But I’m humble enough to call that an educated guess. (People have tried to study this in other protected historic areas and from what I can find, the impact seems to be neutral to minimally positive.)

Oh, I do have to give props to Marksmu, for the (unintentionally) funniest thing I saw all day today: a complaint that the value of a piece of property he owns hasn’t gone up since 2008 because of…. the preservation ordinance. (Because I’m sure none of us can think of anything that’s happened in the last two years that might have impacted the value of a house!)

Joel – 30 years ago when I moved to the Heights from “Up North” I was amazed that there were affordable homes in a nice neighborhood close to downtown.(Yes- it didn’t just get nice when the McMansions arrived). This was already not true in most big cities.
Affordable for young families near urban centers would be nice and Houston still has more to offer than east and west coast cities. There are many close-in townhomes for 200k and less. There is really no need to bulldoze every place that has a yard and fill it with a 4000 sq footer.

>1. I get the feeling that not everyone knows what the ordinance actually says.2. The assumption here seems to be that if you can’t tear a house down and build a McMansion, the land has little value.If this were true, one would expect property values in Woodland Heights and Norhill Heights – which have deed restrictions that put real limits on developers – to have lagged. In fact home values are quite high in those areas.3. There’s an assumption that it won’t be possible to build large houses that fit the historic character of the areas. Actually, we see such houses being built in the Heights all the time (by good builders, for homeowners who respect the character of the neighborhood) and we will continue to.4. People seem a bit confused about these districts, because to read some of the comments you’d think they covered half of the homes inside the loop. We’re talking about a tiny sliver of the city, and a tiny portion of the area inside the loop.5. Lots of platitudes about property rights. Of course property rights are equally violated by electrical and fire codes, noise laws, and lots of other city ordinances.6. A neighborhood is not the sum of its structures and the impact of your property extends past its borders. Blah, blah blah…7. Lots of sore losers out there. Who would love the process if it had worked out differently.8. If you can really predict property value changes based on this, you’ve got an amazing superpower and you should stop dicking around with blog comments and set yourself up making bigger predictions for the big bucks (& then you can move to River Oaks off the proceeds). I predict minimal impact one way or the other. But I’m humble enough to call that an educated guess. (People have tried to study this in other protected historic areas and from what I can find, the impact seems to be neutral to minimally positive.)<

Can I borrow your "educated guess" crystal ball? Oh wait, I don't need it. I can drive through the OSW and see what a protected district of a neighborhood that saw dramatic urban decline and which had started to organically come back before the City interfered. I can compare their sales and the stagnation in their neighborhood and not need anyone else's study or predictions. I have eyes and I can determine when research is applicable and when it isn't.

“I can drive through the OSW and see what a protected district of a neighborhood that saw dramatic urban decline and which had started to organically come back before the City interfered.”

Wow, a sample of one. That’s some good analysis. And of course the OSW and other historic districts are *identical*, plus no other factors could have affected it; I mean, it’s not like a huge, loud nightlife corridor popped up next to it, or anything like that. And of course in the last two years prices elsewhere have skyrocketed! And there isn’t a severely limited stock of housing in a vast neighborhood like OSW. And… oh, by the way, my dog barked while I was reading your comment. Please stop making him bark, OK?

There are plenty of people I don’t agree with who clearly understand what the ordinance says. There are also some relatively wild claims floating around. Thus my comment, which should be taken at face value.

From John (another one):
2. The assumption here seems to be that if you can’t tear a house down and build a McMansion….

McMansion – the most misused word in this debate. McMansions, by anyone else’s definition than the bungalow fanatics are MUCH larger than anything built in the Heights. Furthermore, the Heights was founded with MANSIONS. Please read it’s history.

If this were true, one would expect property values in Woodland Heights and Norhill Heights – which have deed restrictions that put real limits on developers – to have lagged. In fact home values are quite high in those areas.

The reason WH AND NH have strong values is because they never lost their deed restrictions and never suffered the same urban flight and blight. And apparently by your own admission, deed restrictions work so why would we want to have the city control things when deed restrictions work just fine? Do you work at the City?

From John (another one):
3. There’s an assumption that it won’t be possible to build large houses that fit the historic character of the areas. Actually, we see such houses being built in the Heights all the time (by good builders, for homeowners who respect the character of the neighborhood) and we will continue to.

Yes, under the old ordinance. We’ll see under the new but what they appear to want is plain Jane, cookie-cutter with not much architectural interest.

Fair point on the “McMansion” terminology – it’s lazy and unclear. Better stated: the assumption is that historically appropriate construction can’t work, and I think that’s flawed. And while there were certainly mansions built in the Heights, you really can’t claim that the neighborhood wasn’t always mainly far more modest homes.

I think the deed restrictions vs protection debate is a reasonable one, and in fact I think the deed restrictions have worked pretty well in Norhill and Woodland Heights. A couple of observations (and these are just those, not strongly held beliefs):

1. There’s a lot more room for inconsistency and bias in how deed restrictions are enforced. In some cases they aren’t terribly clear on what’s “appropriate.”

2. Deed restrictions don’t address the issue of liveable historic buildings being destroyed, which is where some of the impetus for all this comes from.

It’s a debate worth having.

My issue with a lot of what I’ve read here isn’t that people disagree with me (I have friends who do! and it’s fine), it’s some of the unsupportable claims, predictions offered as fact, and “logic” that wouldn’t pass muster in an elementary school classroom debate.

Unlike some other here, I am also quite willing to accept the possibility that I am wrong, and historic preservation will have entirely different impacts in Houston than it has everywhere else it’s been put in place, generally in much stricter forms than we are talking about, including the last protected historic district where I owned a home. Obviously, I don’t think that’s likely, but it’s certainly possible.

From John (another one):
4. People seem a bit confused about these districts, because to read some of the comments you’d think they covered half of the homes inside the loop. We’re talking about a tiny sliver of the city, and a tiny portion of the area inside the loop.

If it was just one property owner who lost their rights without their consent, it would be too many. It isn’t okay to take the rights of a tiny sliver or any sliver. Like I used to say to my teen-aged child, just because you aren’t an axe-murderer doesn’t mean you can rob banks. Just because it is a little wrong doesn’t make it right. Crazy logic!

From John (another one):
5. Lots of platitudes about property rights. Of course property rights are equally violated by electrical and fire codes, noise laws, and lots of other city ordinances.

Health, Safety and Welfare. Which one does saving an 800 sq ft, termite mound fall into? And those darn property rights folks. What is the matter with them objecting to something that isn’t health, safety or welfare. Another hollow argument.

From John (another one):
6. A neighborhood is not the sum of its structures and the impact of your property extends past its borders. There’s a reason most of us would not move in next door to a crackhouse or a methadone clinic or even just a house with a crazy neighbor who wanders half naked around his back yard screaming. There’s a reason suburban HOAs put tons of nitpicking rules in place. Historic preservation isn’t meant just to protect houses, it’s meant to protect neighborhoods, which are shaped by the relationships between the things built in them – buildings, roads, parks, etc. – as well as the individual structures.

Neighborhoods are about the people not bricks and mortar. Funny how you don’t mention people at all! It isn’t the house that people object to, its the CRACK ADDICT people object to. End of story.

“If it was just one property owner who lost their rights without their consent, it would be too many. It isn’t okay to take the rights of a tiny sliver or any sliver. ”

So, for example, for someone to lose their house because a freeway is being expanded for the convenience of others is wrong, and should never happen?

My point is that the “property rights” argument gets applied very selectively, and therefore it’s hard not to see it as a platitude rather than an actual argument.

Obviously, if you see no value in preserving some of place’s history, and don’t see that history as something of value that belongs to the people of a community, there’s not much to talk about, because there is nothing you will find acceptable. You do need to understand that this view is not shared by others. And part of living in a community – such as a large city – is working out compromises among these different viewpoints.

From John (another one):
7. Lots of sore losers out there. Who would love the process if it had worked out differently.

Sore losers? Who’s lost? Claiming a pre-mature victory doesn’t equate to what is really going to be the final result. The process is far from over and very well might work out differently. No one would ever love the process, depite any result. The proces is illegal, unethical and horribly flawed. You are the only ones who could ever love something so undemocratic and fundamentally unfair. A tamper-free process is what everyone who opposed wanted and a rigged, biased, planned outcome process is what you all wanted and what you got however, since it is only the opening salvo, you won’t be as successful with those who can’t be bought or bullied. However, you statement is pretty typical of those with questionable ethics – you think everyone operates as you do. Sorry, we don’t!

From RHP #75 – Having lived in WH for the last 30 years, I can tell you that a) it was a bit sketchy in the early 80s (which is why I could afford to move here on a fresh out of school budget in an economic downturn), b) the deed restrictions actually had almost all lapsed, sometimes for decades; it took a BIG effort some time later to put in new ones, c) the deed restrictions in place are nowhere near as restrictive as typical suburban restrictions are, d) even with those restrictions, we’ve had to fight certain builders tooth and nail when they try to ignore even something as simple as a setback provision that only requires a fairly tiny front yard (as little as 12 feet deep), and e) the scrape off and build huge (or townhouses) phenomenon is actually relatively recent, and in part a critter of the housing bubble.

“to me making something a historic district basically means restricting it’s growth and that dense multi-family neighborhoods are out of the question in the future for these areas which one would think is something to promote for near-town locations and not the opposite.”
—
The preservationists aren’t against density, per se. They just don’t want it near their own homes. They were actually quite upset about the Walmart development not being dense ENOUGH, instead insisting on a mixed-use West Ave style development for that area.

It’s a case of “density for thee, but not for me.”

It’s not irrational. Areas of low-density surrounded by areas of high-density can potentially result in some pretty high property values (cf. River Oaks). Though I can’t help but notice that River Oaks is the way it is through deed restrictions, not preservation ordinances. And despite quite a few truly historic homes, they don’t seem eager to be designated a historic district. I wonder if there are enough busybodies in River Oaks to get to the 10% threshold.

finness – point noted, but the affordability/supply of townhomes and affordable near-town housing 10 or 20 yrs from now is a supply and demand issue that nobody can possbily fathom at this point in time.

yes there’s lots of townhomes now with some room to bulldoze for more in the midtown/west end areas, but to begin locking out areas now by slapping the term historical on them just seems a bit premature.

i do hope others see the humor in a city like hoston considering it’s first suburb historical though.

There are historic neighborhoods back east that are slightly newer than the Heights, and the Heights (& to some degree Montrose) are good examples of a kind of neighborhood that doesn’t get built anymore (but are still in high demand – which I would call a market failure). So it doesn’t really seem silly, even to those of us who grew up in places whose age is measured in centuries.

I think some of our local preservationists are out to lunch on the density question – inceased density along Yale, Studewood, Montrose, N Main, and Shepherd would be very good things.

“…Though I can’t help but notice that River Oaks is the way it is through deed restrictions, not preservation ordinances. And despite quite a few truly historic homes, they don’t seem eager to be designated a historic district. I wonder if there are enough busybodies in River Oaks to get to the 10% threshold.”

The residents of RO don’t want the city interference. Sue Lovell, at a task force meeting, said OUT LOUD that they were not going to force this on landmarks because they didn’t want RO up in arms about it. They have the money and the politcal stroke to kill it so they left them alone. What does it say when THE MOST HISTORIC neighborhood in the entire city has not been forced to be a district and yet they want to force a low income neighborhood, like Glenbrook Valley to be a district?
Does anyone from the Coalition of Crazy Preservationists complain? NO! They turn a blind eye and ignore River Oaks because they know how vulnerable they are and if the big money and the big power in this city get involved, they are toast. We were all shocked at Lovell’s comment but then again, it was just the beginning and she has made many more outlandish comments since then. River Oaks will never be an historic district.

You gave a very compelling commentary on what COULD be done. Deed restrictions, while not a slam-dunk to get done, are the way that a neighborhood can strenthen protections to improve the community yet still have home-grown control. If a majority want protection (and it should be a majority) then deed restrictions can be put in place. There are also conservation districts which are decided by the community, not the city. Galveston just implemented their first. There are many opportunities for those who want to take the time and care enough to get involved. You don’t have to give control to an out of control commission with a terrible reputation.

You gave a very compelling commentary on what COULD be done. Deed restrictions, while not a slam-dunk to get done, are the way that a neighborhood can strenthen protections to improve the community yet still have home-grown control.
___________________________

The best example of this is Southampton although it doesn’t really enforce its deed restrictions across the board and prefers to sick City Hall on the unfortunate souls who have done something that irritates the “rulers” of Southampton most of whom are attorneys of course.

At any point they could have “annexed” the unrestricted land between Ashby and Cherokee and Bissonnet and Rice. For seome reason they chose not to. And yet took the position that they would decide what could and could not be built in that section. Regardless of what the City Charter said.

The net result is a lawsuit the city will have to defend which the taxpayers will have to pay for in the end rather than the spoiled brats of Southampton.

And no doubt that will be the net result of this “eat your vegetables and shut your mouth” approach to historic preservation.

Regarding what is “historic” – and everyone seems to be an authority – its is actually established by the National Register of Historic Places (Dept. of the U.S Interior -by people that are well trained to know what “historic” means) and adopted by other cities – including Houston. So, though many people may have opinions of what they think is historic – they do not establish the criteria for this designation.

I had a builder tell me that “he would build houses on Heights Blvd. that were more historic than the “old” houses that were there” Really?

From Behunin:
Regarding what is “historic” – and everyone seems to be an authority – its is actually established by the National Register of Historic Places (Dept. of the U.S Interior -by people that are well trained to know what “historic” means) and adopted by other cities – including Houston. So, though many people may have opinions of what they think is historic – they do not establish the criteria for this designation.
______________________________

“In 1985 a 40 block portion of Freedmen’s Town was added to the National Register of Historic Places as a Historic District.”

Freedmen’s Town is the best example of the committment to historic preservation by the City of Houston. And that includes the mayor who was on city council when city council turned a blind eye to the wholesale destruction, rather than preservation, of a historic district that was listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

The mayor served the interest of developers then. And in between the lines of this “preservation ordinance” you can be assured she is still serving the interest of developers.

From The Texas Historical Commission which is responsible for administering the NPS National Register in the state of Texas.
…

The National Register does not:
…

1. Restrict in any way a private property owner’s ability to alter, manage or dispose of a property.
…
2. Require that properties be maintained, repaired, or RESTORED.
…
3. Allow the individual listing of private property over an owner’s objection.
…
4. Allow the listing of historic districts over a MAJORITY of property owner’s objection.
…
5. Require public access to private property.

From PYEWACKET2:
From The Texas Historical Commission which is responsible for administering the NPS National Register in the state of Texas.

…………….

Seems that the city of Houston added a few things.

___________________________

One of the things they added with regard to Freedmen’s Town and Fourth Ward was the right to seize properties by threat of eminent domain, quite a few sold their property for $6 a square foot in the beginning because they believed they had no choice, and the use of city codes to just demolish historic structures by condemning them when the property owners knew they had a choice and chose to exercise that choice. The choice being to say “no” and fight it. At least one of the historic properties was demolished after “someone” backed a pickup truck up to the front porch and attached a chain to a pillar and drove off with part of the front porch which allowed the city to condemn it and then demolish it. And did so while the Texas Historical Commission was sitting around twiddling its thumbs along with several state and federal elected officials in addition to our “preservation-minded” city council. Saying nothing. Doing nothing.

MM,
I’m not quite following. Was it the property owner who wanted to demolish his own property (who drove the pickup) and the city would not issue a permit? Who ultimately ended up with the property?

________________________________

Houston Renaissance owned the property but ran into some temporary resistance over the proposed demolition given the fact that the house was deemed architecturally significant and also contained some rare woods, mainly pines, which were used on the floors and window and door frames and so the resistance was addressed by “someone” driving off with the front porch which allowed the city to condemn it and allowed Houston Renaissance to demolish it before anyone could say a word. The house should have been moved to Sam Houston Park and preserved. Instead it was reduced to rubble. The very few true preservationists who had attempted ot save the house of course were intimidiated along with everyone else. Perfectly legal. Although some questioned the legality given the fact that Houston Renaissance was a non-profit organization using public funding to supposedly “revitalize” Fourth Ward. By destroying it and its history.

The historic designation given to Freedmen’s Town in part was the number of original structures. Which Houston Renaissance “preserved” by demolishing them. Leaves a bad taste in the mouth.

It’s doubtful a Democrat will dare to risk her wrath if they challenge her and lose and it’s doubtful a Republican can win a city election so, well, enjoy as they say.
__________________________

Democrats are notorious for not getting behind one candidate and seeing it through so there likely will be a challenger or two. They don’t cirlce the wagons like Republicans do. And those interested are already gearing up because the are seeing how vulnerable she is. Parker is pretty unpopular. Check out the blog comments associated withe the Chroncile articles about her. Even her most loyal base is speaking out against her.